tv Your World With Neil Cavuto FOX News May 12, 2011 4:00pm-5:00pm EDT
someone has the good sense to bring a picture of a dog and pony, because when it comes to parading out oil ceos today to rip them over their tax subsidies more than a few barking. >> you think anyone who advocates cutting these subsidies is un-american? >> well -- >> yes or no, sir. >> are you willing to apologize? >> there's nothing intended personally. >> so you're not willing to apologize? do you understand how out-of-touch that is? >> seemed to go well today. one of those ceos fires back, because the chevron boss is here. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. today the only surprise was what took so long after that long pain at the pump, big oil back in the hot seat. forced to defend big tax breaks, getting more than a few senators hot under the collar. to the guy at the center of this oil storm, chevron ceo john
watson. he was among the ceos getting grilled today. john, i was watching a little bit. you guys weren't given much of a chance to say anything today. >> neil, thanks for having me on the show. there were some some theatrics today, but it's a serious topic. i told the senate we pay our fair share of taxes. i told them the tax treatment we receive is comparable in terms of deductions and credits to the treatment received by other companies, and all we want is to be treated fairly and equitably relative to other companies in our industry, both the united states and abroad, relative to other cities. >> neil: did you feel you were part of a kangaroo court, though? a lot of times not only could you not get out an answer, but they were more interested in making speeches? >> we take the opportunity we get. sometimes the comments have to be short. we try to get our points across. i think on balance we were able to get across a number of key
points. i think one of the things that i tried to share with senate members is that rather than talking about shared sacrifice, we ought to talk about shared prosperity, the opportunity that our industry has to create jobs, create tax revenue and ultimately put more supply on the market to keep prices down for consumers. so i think we got those points across today. >> do you think if you guys were making so much money, you're making a lot of money, there would even be a hearing today? >> well, our business is big. i think that's -- that's hard for anyone to understand when they see billions of dollars in earnings and zeroes after numbers, it's very hard to understand. but our business is very big. while our earnings are high in dollar terms, so is our spending. we're spending $26 billion this year to try to find more oil and gas around the world, and bring it to our customers in the united states and elsewhere. and so the scope and scale of our business sometimes is -- is understandably hard for people to understand. it's a big business.
>> neil: all right. i guess what a lot of guys are asking, making all that money you certainly don't need any tax breaks, don't need tax subsidies to hunt for that oil. what do you think? >> what we need is tax treatment that's comparable to what other companies receive. our effective tax rate last year was 41%. so we do pay considerable amount of taxes around the world. chevron's tax bill last year was about $13 billion. we pay royalties and other fees on top of that. we pay our fair share. that was the message i tried to get across. >> neil: the fact that you have support from the oddist of circles, including unions. i want to pass along a division oafl-cio, reading in part "we ae concerned certain proposals being considered to raise taxes on the oil and natural gas industry could endanger jobs. what do you think of that?
>> organized labor understands what we do, that we create good-paying jobs at our business, at our refineries, producing operations in the gulf of mexico and onshore in this country. we can do more of that. if we opened more areas for leasing, if we were able to get permits for all the activity that we'd like to be able to conduct, we can create more jobs, and it's good for labor, it's good for taxpayers, and it's good for the american public. >> neil: what about new jersey senator menedez and others that argue you have land to drill upon, but you're not. what do you say? >> that argument about use it or lose it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. one example is in the gulf of mexico. we decided to invest $7.5 billion in a discovery we made that was first leased in
1999, but the water was deep. we had to develop technology. we had to find the oil to begin with through seismic work and drilling. and that oil won't produce until 2014. so it takes time for all of that to take place. during that time, that's counted as unproductive acreage. so i think there's a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding on that topic. >> neil: could i ask you a bit of a simplistic question, but if you had a choice, the tax credits or we'll let you drill to your heart's content, which would you pick? >> i don't think it's an either/or choice. we're asking for equitable tax treatment and we'd like to drill both offshore and onshore. >> neil: the senate will likely never approve drilling, so we're at a standstill there, right? >> we're gradually getting back to wk. in fact, we finally got a permit
today in the gulf of mexico that we've been awaiting on. we're pleased to receive that permit to drill. we have other exploration plans slow in going through the regulatory process. we have another drill ship that's headed to the united states. we want to put it to work here in the fall. we need additional permits for more wells. and we hope we'll see that process timely. >> did any of you feel tempted to turn the questioning on the questioners? in other words, to say we might not be in this energy pickle we're in, senator, if you just let us drill for more oil here. did you ever feel tempted to just do that? >> well, i think we made that point, that we have an opportunity to drill more in this country. the president talked about reducing energy import dependence, and it's ironic that so soon after the president laying out his plan, which requires more production in the united states, that we would see punitive tax measures put in place that will inhibit our ability to develop the very resources that we're trying to produce in this country.
that's the point i want to make to the american public. >> neil: you guys do make a lot of money. i'm old enough sadly to remember when you didn't make a lot of money, the early '80s where we had single dollar oil, and a lot of guys were going out of business, merging, what have you. we forget that, a lot of americans forget that. do you think there's ever a risk that could happen again? in other words, this run-up in oil could run down, that it's a bubble, that everything we're experiencing now in gas and commodities is just a big old bubble that's about to pop? >> we do see volatility in the market over the last several months, but i think the fundamentals around oil are here to stay. we're seeing demand is rising around the world. we have a developed world that has enjoyed the benefits of oil and gas production for many years.
but we have 5 billion on this planet striving for the same things that we have, and light, heat, mobility, industrial development, and that's going to consume more oil and gas. so we're seeing demand rise, and we're also seeing decline in mature oil fields. we're going to need to continue to invest to keep up with that demand. >> neil: john, what it's more than the supply and demand thing? i've had very respected business tight titans, john hudson sr. comes to mind, who suspects that, you know, a lot of these speculators, who trade this stuff, leverage this stuff, hedge this stuff, are making a mess of this stuff. what do you say? >> i think there clearly more financial players in the market today, not just for oil, but for all goods and services and commodities today. we're seeing gold at high levels, agricultural products at high levels. >> neil: unrealistic levels, in other words that go beyond supply and demand, beyond obvious explanation? >> i think in some cases you could make that argument, but i think over time these things even out. what they're saying is concern
about inflation, concern about deficits in our future, concerns about printing more money. they're going to safe havens, whether it's gold or other commodities. >> neil: john watson, thank you very much. >> thanks for having me, neil. >> neil: john watson, chevron ceo in washington, one of the featured speakers today. talk about a guy that's really ticked off at this session today, the shell president, also at the senate hearings today, among those getting lambasted today. my exclusive chat with him on fox business exclusive less than two hours from now. you don't get it. anyway, the housing voting today to open up more of the country to offshore drilling, 243-179, but the bill is expected to go nowhere in the senate because harry reid won't take it up in the senate. dan white is with the center for american progress. you know, dan, i understand your
point of view. it's well known. we've talked about this before. why not at least allow the senate and senators the opportunity to vote on it? >> well, first of all, neil, thank you very much for having me. first senator reid is going to i have avote next week about whether or not we're going to continue to provide billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts to some of the richest, most profitable companies in the world. an independent government study predicts if you were to eliminate these tax breaks, it would reduce their every dollar of profit by one nickel. >> neil: here's where i'm going to jump the gun for you. eliminate the tax breaks, but why not give them the opportunity to drill? >> well, president obama's doing just that. >> neil: no, he's not. no, he's not. >> let me just finish. >> just got another permit today. as the president said back in march, big oil must think americans have amnesia to forget that just a year ago there was the worst oil spill in american
history. >> neil: dan, we've had only a couple permits since this incident. i understand, but they're handing these out slower than me accepting lettuce at a salad bar. we've got to speed up. this is out of control. >> first of all, neil, there's been more than a dozen of those permits granted. >> neil: since the gulf spill three have been completed. three. >> you're mistaken. >> neil: no, i'm not. go ahead. >> the reality is as the department of energy's top information czar has testified, that if we increase production in the u.s., which is a good thing, and i support, it is not going to reduce the price of oil. why? because there's a cartel that controls the price. for every million barrels of day we increase, opec can decrease by a million barrels a day to
keep the price the same. >> neil: what's wrong with just trying, relying less on them and more on us? >> we're doing that. >> neil: no, we're not. what we're doing is going off the coast of brazil to get oil and help them get oil, but not providing the same opportunity to do offshore in the united states. >> the oil production now in the u.s. is the highest it's been in almost 10 years. second of all, the amount of imports have dropped by about 15% between -- since when president bush left office and president obama took office. >> the amount of imports have dropped 15%. >> that's right. we're importing about half of our oil. when bush was president, we were importing close to two-thirds of our oil. the only way to ultimately deal with this problem is reduces our demand. we have 2% of the world's supply. we use 25%. what we ought to be doing is investing in technologies that reduce oil use, like electric cars, like -- >> neil: have at it. >> absolutely. >> neil: you seem to be
selective at what you look and don't like, as is the president. go ahead with wind, solar, these batteries, whatever the hell they are, but by all means tap the oil we have here. >> and that's happening. we're producing more oil domestically than we were in -- >> neil: you just heard a guy who would sit on a dozen different contracts if he could get the clearance to get them through. he can't. >> neil, we just had the worst oil blowout ever in the history of the united states. >> neil: you're going to use that as an excuse ad nauseam. >> let me finish. don't treat me like an oil company witness at a hearing. >> neil: good point. >> we just had the worst oil blowout in our history. >> neil: okay. >> what the administration did was, say, let's get a time-out, make sure that our deep water wells -- >> neil: this isn't a time-out, buddy. this is a death penalty freeze. >> -- to prevent accidents and the ability to clean them up. now that they've done that, the administration has issued over a dozen deep water permits. as chevron just said today, they
from a single phone call to the most advanced data download, we're covering more people in more places than ever before in an effort to give you the best network possible. at&t. rethink possible. long before a cummins diesel engine powered a ram truck.. it roared to life out here. and proved itself here, here, and here. and it's now delivering best-in-class towing, here. and unsurpassed torque, here. the ram 5 year 100,000 mile warranty covers you everyere. ram.
>> we told you a d.c. firm is giving libyan rebels free pr. they're scoring an invite to the white house tomorrow, and soon would be scoring a ton of cash at the white house's request. democratic senator john kerry is rushing to free up the some of the 33 million in assets for the rebels. my next guest says it's a stupid move. former cia operative wayne simmons. why, wayne? what do you make of it? >> neil, again, we've got a ragtag group of muslim
brotherhood, the iranian secret police, every other -- from muslim brotherhood to the other terrorist groups to th. the president of the united states, the single most powerful man in the world is going to give them instant validation. this is not the president sending one of his deputies. we're talking about the president of the united states. it is beyond comprehension that he would step out on a limb and try to give these guys the -- the press that they are just dying to receive. >> neil: weren't we already tacitly supporting them anyway? >> well, we've given them about $12 million of nonweapons.
>> neil: i guess i wasn't clear. by trying to take out qaddafi -- or not trying to take out qaddafi, but going after the military centers. >> yeah. >> neil: we are ostensibly helping the rebels. >> yes, that's right. >> neil: but now we're putting the financial pedal to the metal. >> well, that's right. let me get this straight. senator kerry wants to go into a sovereign nation -- and understand, as most people know me know, if you want this guy dead, meaning qaddafi, let's kill him. there's no one we can't reach. we've proven that. but don't arbitrarily go into a sovereign nation and take their money so you can give it to a group of unknown terrorists or terrorist groups. we don't even know who these guys are that have been vetted to come in to the white house, neil. you got to be kidding me. >> neil: why haven't we taken qaddafi out? what's going on? >> in 2006, the bush administration signed the libyan
repatriation act to make sure that the families of the lockerbie bombing got the money. qaddafi kept to that bargain and he paid them. those families are getting their money. now europe is not getting the money because -- or the oil because qaddafi said he's going to turn the spigot off on them. so they cried to the united states. president obama got us into a war that we have no business being in, another one. and so on and so on. you know, this is just one more preposterous act, neil moig >> neil: wayne, thank you. a plan so controversial, even democrats are bolting from it. so why is the white house being lexus holds s value
better than any other luxury brand. ♪ tellichoice proclaims that lexus has the best overall value of any brand. ♪ and j.d. power and associates ranks lexus highest in customer satisfaction. no wonder more people have chosen lexus over any other luxury brand 11 years in a row. see ur lexus dear. the new blackberry playbook. it runs all this at the same time. ♪ why can't every tablet do that?
>> neil: same day president obama tells companies to start hiring, some house lawmakers told the president he's not helping the cause. this is a live look now as house lawmakers lay into the obama administration over plans forcing companies to disclose political donations in order to get government work. one of those lawmakers, chairman of the house small business committee, sam graves. congressman, what is the meaning of disclosing donations so that everything's on the up and up or do you expect something more sinister? what? >> i suspect something else, because the fact of the matter is, after the accident, or after the contract is awarded, and you know who that business that got the contract, you can look up what they're doing. the administration is requiring it ahead of the award process. they say the reason is transparency. i don't understand why they need it ahead. they said this is information that the procurement process
doesn't need. we're asking the question, if it's not going to be used to make a determination, if they're not going to discriminate companies given to causes or candidates that they don't like, why do they need it? >> if it's going to be found out later, is it better to be found out sooner? >> well, and i asked the question, in the hearing, why do you need this information ahead of time? if it's not going to be used for -- to make that determination, and there wasn't a good answer. you know, again, the fact of the matter is, once a contract has been awarded, then you can go and find out all the information you want, but what worries me is this administration, the simple fact they want it ahead of the process, they want to know before they award the contract who they've given to, disturbs me a great deal, because it smacks of using that information against these companies. >> is the fear as well that, let's say they do reveal donations, to you or your campaign, that they're automatically black listed? >> that's what the fear is.
declined to do so because they were in fear of retribution from the administration testifying on this particular issue. >> neil: is it your sense that this is going nowhere? seems to me like it blew up, even among democrats, who said this is silly. >> the fact is it is a bipartisan issue now. you know, you heard the minority whip say he was agains stunt, ah the president. does republican senator varasso feel the same way he's here.
your finances can't manage themselves. but that doesn't mean they won't try. bring all your finance together with the help of the one person who can. a certified financial planner professional. cfp. let's make plan. it's got a calculator. thanks, dad. this is the neighborhood. you get elm street and you get main street. thank you. and that just the first quarter. so you want a slide in your office ? or monkey bars, either one. more small businesses choose verizon wireless than any other wireless carrier. where's susie ? is she expecting you ? because they know the small business with the best technology rules. ♪ i've seen the sunrise paint the desert.
witnessed snowfall on the first day of spring. ♪ but theost beautiful thing i've ever seen was the image on a screen that helpeour doctor see my wife's cancer was treatable. [ male announcer ] ge technologies help doctors detect cancer early so they can save more lives. bringing better health to more people. ♪
enforcement, as quoted by the "wall street journal," putting the total as of two yesterday. chevron was granted this third one today. that is since the bp oil spill. so not a dozen, but the three as i suggested. that is, again, from the bureau of ocean energy management, regulation and enforcement. didn't sound right to me, but i wanted to make sure i checked a reputable source. that's what we have, deep water drilling since the gulf oil spill, the number of permits that have been granted. three, not a dozen. all right, well, kill as many americans as possible. strike on significant dates. don't limit it to acts to new york city. some just of the frightening sentences investigators are finding in osama bin laden's handwritten journal. for a government dead set on relieving a picture of a dead bin laden, more than a few lively leaks of top-secret information. former cia analyst lisa curtis says this has got to stop, but
it keeps leaking out. what do you make of this, lisa? >> i think white house and other government officials are being too loose-lipped about the information being gathered at bin laden's compound, and also about the intelligence methods use to track bin laden. it's understandable to release information related to specific terror or security threats to the american public, but it's not acceptable to talk about intelligence methods and discuss all of the information found so quickly. for instance, why did they have to discuss the cia safe house used to spy on bin laden? certainly this is interesting and it makes the cia look good for being able to carry out such a stealthy operation, however it's going to make it more difficult when the cia has to conduct a similar operation in the future. it just didn't make sense to allow this dribbling out of bits and pieces of information about the trove of intelligence found at the compound rather than --
>> neil: who's dribbling it out? if it's not defense or -- who's dribbling it out? >> seems like it's mostly the white house, which raises a lot of questions. why aren't they carefully assessing the information, ensuring that before they release any information, that it's not going to disrupt or threaten our ongoing efforts to take down al-qaeda. so it just doesn't make sense. >> could it be anyone else, lisa? people involved in the attacks, they just blabber? >> well, of course. i mean, that's always the danger that people are proud of what they've done, maybe they want to release that information. i think it's difficult to say at this point, but i think they better take steps to tighten up the ship, because, you know, it's likely to damage our ongoing efforts to take down other parts of the organization. >> neil: lisa curtis, thank you very much. >> thank you.
>> neil: then there's this. >> there will be no tax increases in connection with raising the debt ceiling. >> in terms of a long-term solution to this problem, it has to include all aspects of spending, including spending through the tax code. >> okay. so republicans say no way. the white house says, yeah, way, tax hikes could be on the way. today's meeting between the president and republicans all for show? you were concerned yesterday that it could be for show, senator. what's your feeling now? >> neil, i think it depends on the results. look, we have a $14 trillion debt in this country. the president wants to raise the debt ceiling. i'm not ready to give him a blank check or new credit card. so the meeting today, it was a candid discussion. whether it's productive or not depends on what the president up thely takes away from that meeting and incorporates in the needs of this country to get our financial house in order. >> neil: did he give any
indication about the so-called debt trigger? in other words, if we're not meeting the numbers, i think the u.s. view is tax hikes go into effect, not so much spending cuts. >> it wasn't a specific negotiation, but we did talk about the need to put a cap on spending as opposed to a total debt cap, which the president i think it's more interested in having, which would involve additional taxes. you know, if we get increased tax revenue in this country because we're creating jobs in the private sector and growing the economy, that's one thing, but raising the tax rate to me is completely off the table. >> you are pegging -- or you republicans want to peg any raise of the debt ceiling to cuts in spending. maybe not the dollar for dollar type that john boehner in the house was looking for, but something like that. is the white house on board something like that? >> not to the specific details yet. we had a frank discussion about the need for entitlement reform. some of these are popular entitlements.
when you look at medicare -- and neil, i practiced medicine for 25 years. i would say half of my time in my office was spent with people on medicare or medicaid. with medicare, when they put that into play in 1965, men were living in their mid-60s, men in their mid-70s. >> neil: why aren't you and your republicans colleagues bringing it up? >> we brought up the need to do responsible medicare reform to save medicare in the long run. >> neil: maybe you should spend more time talking to your leaders, because they're not keen on it. >> well, the leadership, senator mcconnell, all are interested in dealing with entitlement reform on our side. look, if you want to -- neil, if you just want to nibble around the edges on this, take a little bit here, a little bit there, discretionary spending you can never solve the major problem we
have in this country. to be responsible, you have to deal with the entitlements, even though they're popular. >> neil: very right about that. senator, thank you very much. >> thanks, neil. >> neil: you think freddie mac is scary now. a new plan may have it looking more like this freddy anytime. anyone who grows things for a living will tell ya... a plant is only as good as the soil you put it in. look, both these potted plants got the same sun. same wat. only difference? this. miracle-gro potting mix.
rich organic ingredients with miracle-gro plant food mixed right in. it even fds plants for six straight months. want this result? gotta start with this soil. miracle-gro potting mix. success starts with the soil. [ technician ] are you busy? management jt sent over these new technical manuals. they need you to translate them into portuguese. by tomorrow. [ male announcer ] ducati knows it's better for xerox to manage their global publications. so they can focus on building amazinbikes. with xerox, you're read for real business.
>> not like a kick in the fanny, but knocking them down to little fannies. two lawmakers want to break up fannie mae and freddie mac into five private companies. the idea is to find a private market alternative to mortgage lenders that have lost taxpayers. congress trying to find a way to shut the spigot down. gentlemen, welcome. >> great to be with you, neil. >> hi, neil. >> congressman campbell, maybe you first, as a republican, your
party's the majority in the house. do you think it will go along with this? >> i think so. i don't think we'll have everybody. there are those who don't believe there should be any government involvement with the housing market at all, but i think most republicans, and i believe a significant number of democrats, and i'll let gary talk about that, but will agree that the housing market is a huge and very important part of the economy. we can't just leave it without any support. we're not trying to lower rates or anything here. what we want to do is have stability in the marketplace and continue the availability of 30-year fixed mortgages. in order to do that, i believe, and i think virtually everyone in the financial community believes and understands, you have to have some government support. what we've done with this structure is have all private capital, a number of private entities, and the taxpayer will be protected. they're way, way down the list, because there will be capital and guarantees, mortgages, all kinds of other things before the
taxpayer would be at any risk. >> congressman peters, how do you know, though, you're not replacing two big problems with lots of little problems? >> well, we'll have a competitive marketplace, which the key is to bring the market back in private capital, hoping to have five associations or more that will be regulated. as congressman campbell mentioned, we'll have significant private capital that will be ahead of any kind of guarantees. the federal backstop. a federal backstop is necessary to make sure that we can continue to have a product that's essential to the housing market here in this country, which is a 30-year mortgage, but it is critical that we protect the taxpayers. we can't have any more bail-outs. we got to protect the taxpayers. >> neil: again, with the best of intentions, how do you know you're not pouring good money after bad just to prop these new entities up? >> there has to be private capital that comes in, and -- >> neil: they're basically utilities backed by the taxpayer, right? >> the entities are not backed.
the underlying securities will be, the investors, but the entities themselves if they get into trouble, they will fail, go away. it's not the taxpayers that have to pick up the tab. >> neil: congressman campbell, isn't it possible, though you don't want this, that we will still be looking at the government on the hook for mortgages that could go bad? >> but, neil, for the government be on the hook you'd have to burn through the downpayments, and we're going to require good, solid down payments. >> neil: what are good, solid? >> probably 20%. jude to burn through all the capital in the association, and then they're going to pay a market rate for this government insurance. that will go into an insurance fund, just like the fdic on
banks. you have no more chance that the taxpayer will be risk here than they are on the fdic on banks today. will one of these associations fail? perhaps it could. you could have a bad actor that gets through a regulator, just like banks that fail. the taxpayer isn't on the hook. that's why we want capital. it worked in the banking sector. we think it can work with this as well. >> neil: everyone appreciates the fact you're trying to move the ball at least. gentlemen, thank you. >> thanks, neil. >> neil: john kennedy pulled it off. can mitt romney? one got a nation to get over his religion. can the other get a nation to get over something that has nothing to do with his religion? we know why we're here. ♪ to design the future of flight, inside and out. ♪ to build tomorrow's technology in amazing ways. ♪ and reshape the science of aerospace -- forever. [ female announcer ] around the globe,
thing today. not about his mormon thing. i'm talking about his massachusetts romney care thing. state-sponsored healthcare program that have some have likened to the bay state's version of obama care. very different, the front-running republican stressing today. >> a lot of pundits around the nation are saying i should stand up and say this whole thing was a mistake, that it was just a bone-headed idea and i should admit it was a mistake and walk away from it. i presume that a lot of folks would conclude if i did that, that would be good for me politically, but there's only one problem with that. it wouldn't be honest. >> all right. did it work for him? to presidential historian rick shankman on whether romney succeeded with those remarks today. what do you think? >> that sounded pretty good, if he can back it up, and if he can withstand. heat he's going to get from the conservative base of the republican party, which does not believe that that massachusetts plan was all that different from the obama healthcare plan.
presidential candidates usually are very, very reluctant to apologize for anything. presidents, every once in a while will apologize and the public will often respond to a sincere, heartfelt apology from a president. from a presidential candidate, much less so. >> neil: certainly it's worked in the past, with other presidents as you said, rick. i mentioned jfk at the outset, but after the bay of pigs disaster, thes these remarks rit after it. this is president kennedy. >> there's a old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan. >> neil: what the president is saying, i botched it, it wasn't a good thing to do. his poll ratings went after that, alarmingly so. mitt romney stands by what he did. he doesn't think he botched it. what do you think? >> well, kennedy's poll ratings did go up so high, that he joked to everybody that every other
week he needed to confess that he made another big blunder, and he'd be re-elected in a landslide. famous among jfk b biographyers. romney is in that position because he's not a president. as a presidential candidate, you don't want to be in a position to apologize, because people aren't sure who they are. if the impression they get is you're somebody who flip-flops or apologizes, it makes them weak about you. they feel less confident in you. george romney, romney's father, had that very same problem when he ran for president in 1968. he apologize, if you'll remember, over his saying that lbj was convincing about vietnam and he believed it. then later he said, he was brainwashed. >> neil: he buried himself. you're right. sometimes it's the timing of an apology. very quickly, ronald reagan, well after the iran-contra thing blew up, this is ronald reagan. >> a few months ago i told the
american people i did not trade arms for hostages. my heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. >> neil: now, he surged in the polls after that, but i wonder if it had been more effective had he done that earlier. what do you think? >> oh, yeah. he had a lot of advisors saying you have to say this earlier. he didn't want to do it. he was very, very stubborn about certain things. this was one of those things. iran-contra cost him 16 points in the polls in a period of three weeks, a fastest drop any president ever suffered in the polls. finally, this was the tur turnig point speech. once he admitted he made a mistake, the public could sit back and say, okay, we get it, he started to come back up in the polls. it really saved his presidency. >> neil: very interesting. rick, always good seeing you, my friend. thank you very much. >> all right. thank you thinking when you lose
an argument, you start calling names. you know when you lose me? when you start calling me names. i'll explain. [ slap! ] . male announcer ] your favorite foods fhting you? fight back fast with tums. ccium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums the two trains and a bus rider. the "i'll sleep when it's done" academic. for 80 years, we've been inspired by you. and we've been honored to walk with you to help you get where you want to be ♪ because your moment is now. let nothing stand in your way. learn more at keller.edu.
it's got a calculator. thanks, dad. this is the neighborhood. you get elm street and you get main street. thank you. and that just the first quarter. so you want a slide in your office ? or monkey bars, either one. more small businesses choose verizon wireless than any other wireless carrier. where's susie ? is she expecting you ? because they know the small business with the best technology rules.
your advertising mail campaign is paying o! business is good! it must be if you're doing all that overnight shipping. that must cost a fortune. it sure does. well, if it don't have get there ovnight, you can save a lot with priority mail flat re envelopes. one flat rate to any state, just $4.95. that's cool and al.. but it ain't my mone seriously do not care... so, you don't care what anyone says, you want to save this company money! that's exactly what i was sayi. hmmm... ority mail fat rate envelopesjust $4.95 only from the postal service.
a simpler way to ship. ♪ ♪ >> neil: you know we get a lot of e-mail on the show. some good, some bad. i'm happy to say, mostly good. but that doesn't stop the really bad. now and then, in a slow news day, maybe just being glutton for punishment, i don't know, we pick out some real gems, what i call the i can't win ones. this is from paul who e-mails -- >> neil: kind of like the way you e-mail, paul. this is consistent, the conflicted e-mail. this is from san francisco -- well, cara, i'm rubber, you're glue. whatever you says, bounces off
>> neil: simple one -- okay. karen e-mails -- we do have a separate g.e.d. program for some guests. however, allen in pittsburgh -- okay, did you see what you just wrote me? ellen e-mails -- >> glenn: i'm not going to say that! i'm sure the kids will love what you just wrote. anyway, allen e-mails --
la-da-di-dah. >> glenn: yo i love the p.s. part of that. that was good. anyway, always, always more than my share of comments like these. sarah e-mailed -- >> neil: what is it with this fat thing? and another one -- >> neil: hell of a holy day back to you. and my staff wondered of the wisdom to repeating these, maybe to show there is no wisdom in any of thee. just that there are those who criticize the clueless behavior they see, but never see it in some of the clueless things they write.
it's like they can't look in the mirror. they all work at msnbc. that was mean. that was unnecessary. i apologize for those i compare them to at msnbc. coming up on the fox business network -- >> who is the horse and who is the dog? i think we both know. [ laughter ] i know who the horse's ass is, i'll put it that way. >> neil: you don't want to know. senator orrin hatch will tell us who it is at 6:00 p.m. on fbn. he could do anywhere. guess where he is going? bfn. you don't get it? >> demand it! >> neil: take that! captioned by closed captioning services, inc